摘要
《古文四声韵》等所录"老"古文"■"是"寿"之省讹。《籀韵》"寿"作■,则是"寿"的讹俗。《集韵》"壔"古文作■,其右部"■"是"寿"之讹。《龙龛手鉴》录"俟"的两个古文"■""■",前者是"寿"之俗讹,后者是"畴","俟""畴"是义近误植。《古文四声韵》"卑"古文■是中古俗体。《古文四声韵》"吴"■、■均是"於"字讹体,古文借"於"表"吴"。
Ancient character"老"in Gu Wen Si Sheng Yun and so on is written as"■".It is the abbreviation of"寿".Ancient character"寿"is written as■.It is the erroneous transformation of"寿".Ancient character"壔"in Ji Yun is written as■,the left part of which is the erroneous transformation of"寿"."俟"in Long Kan Shou Jian is written as"■"and"■",the first of which is the erroneous transformation of"寿",and the second of which is"畴".The meaning of"俟"and"寿"is the same,and are included in a wrong way.Ancient character"卑"■in Gu Wen Si Sheng Yun is erroneous transformation.Ancient character"吴"■and■in Gu Wen Si Sheng Yun is the erroneous transformation of"於".
出处
《语言研究集刊》
2020年第2期384-390,446-447,共9页
Bulletin of Linguistic Studies
基金
2017年度国家社科基金重大项目“战国文字诂林及数据库建设”(项目编号17ZDA300)
2018年度国家社科基金“冷门‘绝学’和国别史等研究专项”项目传抄古文资料全编与传抄古文研究(项目编号2018VJX081)资助
